Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know. - Daniel J. Boorstin

THE WEST AT THE DAWN OF THE 21ST CENTURY: TRIUMPH WITHOUT SELF-BELIEF

by Alan Charles Kors

The willingness to contain Communism, to fight its expansion overtly and covertly, to sacrifice wealth and often lives against
its heinous efforts of extension was, with the struggle against Nazism over a much briefer period, the great gift of American
taxpayers and the American people to planet Earth. As England under Churchill was in 1940, the United States from 1945 to
1989 was the West, drawing from its values to stand against what was simultaneously its mutant offspring and its antithesis.
In the twentieth century, the West met and survived its greatest trial.

On the whole, however, Western intellectuals
do not revel in these triumphs. Where is the celebration, and, just as importantly, where is the accounting? The absence of
celebration, of teaching the lessons learned, and of demands for accountability is perhaps easily understood on the Left.
Convinced that the West above all has been the agent of creating artificial relationships of dominance, subservience, the
commodification of human life, and ecocide, Left intellectuals have little interest in objective analysis of the manifest
data about societies of voluntary exchange. Nor do they have interest in coming to terms with the slowly and newly released
data about the conditions of life and death under the Bolsheviks and their heirs, or in the confirmation and disconfirmation
of various theories in the outcome of the Cold War (let alone, given their contemporary concerns, in analysis of ecological
or gender politics under Communist or, indeed, third-world regimes). Less obvious, but equally striking, in some ways, has
been the absence of celebration on so much of the intellectual Right, because it is not at all certain something worth calling
Western civilization did, in fact, survive the twentieth century.

The view that Western civilization has ended has
had various incarnations, with the most sensitive souls of many epochs imagining themselves to be the last bearers of the
Western torch. One needs perspective in such things: the question, in many ways, was more compelling when Athens fell; when
Christian Rome was sacked by barbarians; when the Norsemen ravaged settled Europe; when feudal warlords reigned unchecked;
when, at the end of the first millennium, all signs indicated a divine disfavor that seemed to presage the end of the world;
when the Black Death left soul and society without mooring. Indeed, imagine the question posed to Catholic and Protestant
apologists of the sixteenth century, viewing each other's religions as the Antichrist and seeing Western Christendom rent
first in two and then into a multitude of competing sects. How fragile, if not spent, the West seemed during the religious
civil wars, or, indeed, during the devastation of the Thirty Years War. There were lamentations in profusion during the Terror,
the decades of Revolutionary and then Napoleonic Wars, and again, with gravitas, there were the inward and outward sermons
on the West uttered on the slaughterfields of World War I, or at Auschwitz, or in the Gulag.

The West is resilient
beyond all seeming possibility, and something gives it that resiliency. The West has survived its barbarians without and --
more dreadful yet -- its own barbaric offspring within. If it could outlast Attila the Hun and the armed ideologies of the
Third Reich or Stalin's Russia, it surely can outlast Jacques Derrida, Stanley Fish, and Michel Foucault. At each moment of
seeming dissolution, there were diverse profound voices who analyzed compellingly the depths to which we had fallen; the almost
infinite remove we were from any light; the loss of something that we never could recover, and yet the West survived. There
was something about its mind, its spirit. Greece fell, but its philosophers conquered the minds of those who conquered its
soil, and its natural conceptual categories still organize our understanding of reality and knowledge. Rome fell, but its
language became the lingua franca, and, thus, the natural definitional universe of Christendom; its history became the great
drama by which to understand the glory and the baseness of political life. The barbarian tribes believed that they had conquered
Rome, but Rome, in greater part, had conquered them, and their descendants called their realm the Holy Roman Empire, and these
terms were not, until much later, empty words. When the Norsemen came, learning fled to monasteries, and that learning, and,
indeed, those monasteries, eventually conquered the Norse, whose Norman descendants, in Britain, founded universities that
live to this day. It is the last thing that any frightened monk taking desperate shelter in the eighth century ever could
have imagined.

The Thirty Years War seemed to sensitive and moral observers the end of civilization, but its battles
are mostly forgotten, and what is it that remains of that seventeenth century? Bacon. Galileo. Descartes. Hobbes. Pascal.
Bayle. Boyle. Fenelon. Harvey. Huyghens. Newton. Locke. Louis XIV is a tourist attraction at Versailles; his wars changed
precious little. The conceptual revolution of the West, however, changed a great deal in that same seventeenth century. It
arose from the very dynamics of the West's models of learning -- disputation, accounting for appearances, refining inductive
and deductive logic -- now linked to expanded education and to printing. What happened in the minds of the graduates of Europe's
Christian universities changed the human relationship to nature, to knowledge, to the rights of inquiry and conscience, and
to political and economic life. The Christian West kept the traditions of Greek mind alive, and, thus, from its own debates,
it overthrew the presumptive authority of the past in matters of natural knowledge and its application. The West believed
that we were not cast fatally adrift in this world, but that we could learn new things and that we could alter the sorry scheme
of experience closer to the heart's desire for knowledge, order, and well-being. It was not Faust who dreamed of occult knowledge
that would make him a demigod, but Bacon, who commanded that knowledge proceed from humility and charity, who became the prophet
of the great scientific revolution of the West. Louis XIV is a statue; Bacon is a living force wherever the West touches minds.

It is odd that conservatives question whether Western civilization has survived the twentieth century, at the very
time that so many academics on the cultural Left define that civilization as a singular hegemony that stands astride the globe.
What, after all, is the "multiculturalism" so ardently but desperately proclaimed in higher education but the belief
that there is a hegemonic Western civilization that, unchallenged, frames all issues and that provides almost all modes of
understanding? For the so-called multiculturalists, the question is not whether what they see without complexity as Western
civilization will survive into the twenty-first century, but whether anything other than Western civilization will so survive.
What, after all, do they mean by the hegemony of the West? It is not physical colonialism and imperialism that concern them
anymore. No, they see as far more ominous what they term the cultural colonialism and imperialism of the West, a triumphant
colonialism of the mind by a civilization that believes in universal categories that transcend its own civilization. The West
believes its values to be accessible to all human souls. The West believes its science to be a method by which all human beings,
everywhere, can rise above ignorance, superstition, helplessness, and prejudice. The West believes that there are rights and
obligations that belong to humanity qua humanity, beyond the power of governments and political wills. Conservatives despair
about the disappearance of that West; the cultural Left despairs about its transcendent success.

There are profound
ironies about the multiculturalists, so many of which testify precisely to the dynamism and inescapable appeal of precisely
that Western civilization to whose dismemberment they are in theory committed. Theoretically, they are all moral relativists,
but in fact, they sound, most of the time, like Biblical prophets, calling power to categorical moral duty; or, most commonly,
like traditional Western social critics who in this case have not thought out either their facts or their logic terribly well.
The postmodern canon, despite its proclaimed alienation from Western thought and values, derives not from any non-Western
culture, but from the internal debates of the West and the products of its educational vitality: from Marcuse, Gramsci, Marx,
Hegel, and Rousseau -- from, in short, the debates that the West always has had with itself. When the issue is involuntary
female circumcision, for example, post-modernists seek asylum in America for the victims of such customary rites, citing our
notions of legal equality and of universal human dignity, not their alleged commitments to the relativity of all human values
and cultures. They seek tenure at universities with medieval traditions of what the West called "philosophical liberty."
In the first and in the final analysis, so-called multiculturalists are simply Western radicals, in the Western radical tradition,
with the most imperial, dogmatic, and absolutist aspirations of all.

The current barbarians within also remind us
that the West is, again and again, the author of its own worse follies and abuses, compared to most of which the postmodernists
pale into virtual insignificance. We are the authors of our own religious wars and persecutions, our own enthusiastical superstitions,
our own conquests of lands and peoples over which and whom we had no rights, our own ultimate nightmares of National or Leninist
Socialism, which drowned our world in blood unimaginable in any century but the twentieth, and which truly threatened to bring
this civilization to an awful end. We have had the will, however, to learn from depravity and from reality, and to bear ultimate
witness to the higher sides of our being. What civilization ever has engaged in more searing analysis and soul-searching of
its own sins? Having defeated the National Socialists and the Communists within, the bearers of the best of this civilization
have reason for a moment of optimistic pride. What often denies us both optimism and pride, however, is the very stringency
of our self-judgment untempered by historical realism. It is a dangerous intellectual error to imagine that goodness, wisdom,
order, justice, peace, freedom, legal equality, mutual forbearance, and kindness are the default state of things in human
affairs, and that it is malice, folly, disorder, war, coercion, legal inequality, murderous intolerance, and cruelty that
stand in need of historical explanation. The West, in theory, always has understood that man has a lower side to which he
is drawn, that man is a wolf to man, and that we are governed more by prejudice and passion than by the rational capacity
of our minds.

If that is so, however, then we err grievously in our assumptions of what it is that requires particular
explanation in the world. We understand the defaults; what should astonish us is the ability to change them. Rousseau and
the postmodernists have it all backward in this domain. It is not aversion to difference, for example, that requires historical
explanation, for aversion to difference is the human condition; rather, it is the West's partial but breathtaking ability
to overcome tribalism and exclusion that demands explanation. Anti-Semitism is not surprising; the opening of Christian America
to Jews is what should amaze. It is not the abuse of power that requires explanation -- that is the human condition -- but
the Western rule of law. Similarly, coerced religious conformity should not leave us groping for understanding, but the forging
of religious toleration. It is not slavery that requires explanation because slavery is one of the most universal of all human
institutions; it is the values and agency by which the West identified slavery as an evil and finally abolished it. Finally,
it is not relative pockets of poverty in the West that should occasion our wonder, for we termed almost infinitely worse absolute
levels of poverty as simply "the human condition"; rather, what is extraordinary are the values, institutions, knowledge,
risk, ethics, and liberties that created such prosperity that we even notice such poverty at all, yet alone believe it is
eradicable.

We are surprised, in a failure of intellectual analysis, by all of the wrong things, and as a tragic
result we lose our wonder at the accomplishments and aspirations of our civilization. Depravity never should startle us; rather,
the identification and naming of depravity should amaze us, and the attempt, frequently successful, to contain it should fill
us with awe. Indeed, that attempt has been so successful in the West, relative to the human condition, that the other world
fantasized by the multiculturalists seeks entrance, again and again, at our doors, and the multiculturalists are not riding
leaky boats to the otherness of the Third World. Most obviously, the multiculturalists' ostensible rejection of the West's
philosophical realism, their vaunted "social constructionism," does not stay with them past their medical doctor's
door.

In the final analysis, it is that last trait, the West's commitment to a logically ordered philosophical realism,
that undergirds its ways of thinking, valuing, and, indeed, worshiping. Such philosophical realism was defended by Augustine,
Aquinas, and almost all fathers and doctors of the Church. While various extreme epistemological and ontological skepticisms
and various radical irrationalisms have flourished, sometimes with brilliance and profundity in our history, Western civilization
always has had at its core a belief that there is a reality independent of our wishes for and ideas of it; that natural knowledge
of that reality is possible, and, indeed, indispensable to human dignity, and that such knowledge must be acquired through
a discipline of the will and mind; and that central to that discipline is a compact with reason. The West has willed, in theory
at least, to reduce the chaos of the world to natural coherence by the powers of the mind.

Indeed, the belief that
truth is independent of particular time and place is precisely what has led the West to borrow so much from other cultures,
such that, ironically, whole schools of tendentious thought decry Western "thefts," as if the recognition of compelling
example and argument in others were a weakness, not a strength. The West recognized and adopted Eastern systems of number
superior to that of the Romans; it took the Aristotle of its high Middle Ages from the Islamic scholars who had preserved
and interpreted it in manners superior to the schools of the West; it took music, art, forms of expression, and new foods
from around the earth that, in large part out of restless curiosity about realities beyond its own, it had explored. The West
always has renewed and revitalized itself by means of recognizing superior ways to its own. It did so, however, with a commitment
to being a rational culture.

The Greek principle of self-contradiction as the touchstone of error, and thus, its
avoidance as a touchstone of truth, is the formal expression of a commitment to reason that the Christian West always understood
to separate us from beasts and madmen. To live with self-contradiction was not merely to fail an introduction to philosophy,
it was to be less than human. Induction from experience always had a logic, and the exploration of that logic was one of the
great and ultimately triumphant pursuits of the Western mind. To live with error was to deny oneself the fruits of that human
light. Again, the core philosophical assumption of Western civilization is that there is a reality that exists independently
of our will and wish, and that this reality can be known by human inquiry and reason. There were many radical ruptures in
the history of certain disciplines in the West; there were no radical ruptures with the Western compact with reality and reason.
It is that compact that led to a civilization of self-scrutiny and honest borrowings; to a civilization in which self-criticism
gave rise to a critical scholarship that could question and either strengthen or repair the West's received beliefs themselves;
to a civilization in which the mind could appeal to the rational against the irrational with ultimate success; to a way of
understanding that led to the sciences that have changed both the entire human relationship to nature and our sense of human
possibilities, always tempered by our knowledge of human nature.

The fruits of that civilization have been an unprecedented
ability to modify the remediable causes of human suffering, to give great agency to utility and charity alike; to give to
each individual a degree of choice and freedom unparalleled in all of human history; to offer a means of overcoming the station
in life to which one was born by the effort of one's labor, mind, and will. A failure to understand and to teach that accomplishment
would be its very betrayal.

To the extent that Western civilization survives, then, the hope of the world survives
to eradicate unnecessary suffering; to speak a language of human dignity, responsibility, and rights linked to a common reality;
to minimize the depredations of the irrational, the unexamined, the merely prejudicial in our lives; to understand, with the
possibility of both interest and charity applying that knowledge for good to the world in which we find ourselves.

The
contest on which the triumph of the West depends, then, ultimately, is between the realists and the antirealists. The failure
to assess the stakes of the struggle between the West and its moral Communist adversary always came from either a pathological
self-hatred of one's own world or from a gross undervaluation of what the West truly represented in the history of mankind.
The West has altered the human relationship to nature from one of fatalistic helplessness to one of hopeful mastery. It has
made possible a human life in which biological atavism might be replaced by cultural value, the rule of law, individuation,
and growing tolerance. It also created an intellectual class irrationally devoted to that adversarial stance. Its view of
the West, in the past generation at least, had become a neo-Gramscian and, thus, neo-Marxist one, in which the West was seen
as an unparalleled source of the arbitrary assignment of restrictive and life-stultifying roles. The enemies of the West represented
a fictive make-believe that supposedly cast grave doubt upon the West's claim of enhancing freedom and dignity and opportunity.

With the triumph of the West in reality and with the celebration of Marxism and the Third World shown more and more
to have been truly delusional, the adversarial intellectual class appears to be retreating increasingly into ideologies and
philosophies that deny the very concept of "reality" itself. One sees this in the growing strength in the humanities
and soft social sciences of critical theories that view all representations of the world as text and fiction. When the world
of fact can be twisted to support this or that side of delusion (as in astrology or parapsychology), pathology tries to appropriate
what it can of the empirical. When the world of fact manifestly vitiates the very foundations of pathological delusion, then
it is the very claim of facticity or reality per se that must be denied. This is what we now may expect: the world having
spoken, the intellectual class, the Left academic wing of it above all, may appropriate a little post- Communist chaos to
show how merely relative a moral good the defeat of Stalin's heirs has been, but it will assail the notion of reality itself.
In Orwell's 1984, it was the mark of realistic, totalitarian power to make its students say that all truth was political,
"a social construction," as intellectuals would say now, and not objective; that, in the specific case, 2+2=5. By
2004, making students in the humanities and soft social sciences say the equivalent of 2+2=5 will be the goal of adversarial
culture. They will urge that all logical and, one should add, all inferential, inductive truths from experience are arbitrary,
mere social constructions.

The ramifications of that effort will dominate the central debates of the Humanities in
the generation to come. Until there is a celebration and moral accounting of the historical reality of "the triumph of
the West," that "triumph" will be ephemeral indeed. Academic culture has replaced the simplistic model that
all culture was functional, a model that indeed could not account for massive discontents or revolutionary change, let alone
for moral categories, by the yet more astonishing and absurd model that virtually all culture is dysfunctional. Whole disciplines
now teach that propositions are to be judged by their therapeutic value rather than by their inductive link to evidence, that,
in the final analysis, feeling good about saying something determines the truth-value of what is said.

Understanding
human weakness, however, the West always has believed that it is precisely when we want to believe something self-gratifying
that we must erect barriers of experiment, rigor, and analysis against our self-indulgence and our tendency to self-serving
error. The human ability to learn from experience and nature, so slighted in current humanistic theory, is not merely an object
of cultural transmission, let alone of social control, but an evolutionary triumph of the species, indeed, a triumph on which
our future ultimately depends. There is nothing more desperate than helplessness, and there is no more inveterate cause of
helplessness than the inability to affect and mitigate the traumas of our lives. If the role of both acquired knowledge and
the transmission and emendation of the means of acquiring knowledge is a "Western" concern, then it is a Western
concern upon which human fate depends.

In the current academic climate of indoctrination, tendentiousness, and fantasy,
the independence of critical intellect and the willingness to learn open-mindedly from experience of a reality independent
of the human will are the greatest hopes of our civilization. Has Western civilization survived? That is to ask, has a human
relationship to the world based upon the assumption of a knowable reality, reason, and a transcendent value to human dignity
and responsibility survived? Has a will to know oneself and the world objectively survived? Has a recognition of human depravity
and the need to limit the power of men over men survived? I do not think that free men and women will abandon that hard-won
shelter from chaos, ignorance, parochial tribalism, irrationalism, and, ultimately, helplessness.

Has Western civilization
survived, its principle of reality justified and intact? Yes indeed, though it requires constant defense. The demand for perfection
is antinomian, illogical, and empirically absurd. The triumph of the West is flawed but real. Recall how everything depends
on realism in our understanding, and rejoin the intellectual struggle.

Why even Latino parents are rejecting a program designed for their children's benefit by Rosalie Pedalino Porter

BILINGUAL education is a classic example of an experiment that was begun with the best of humanitarian intentions but has
turned out to be terribly wrongheaded. To understand this experiment, we need to look back to the mid-1960s, when the civil-rights
movement for African-Americans was at its height and Latino activists began to protest the damaging circumstances that led
to unacceptably high proportions of school dropouts among Spanish-speaking children -- more than 50 percent nationwide. Latino
leaders borrowed the strategies of the civil-rights movement, calling for legislation to address the needs of Spanish-speaking
children -- Cubans in Florida, Mexicans along the southern border, Puerto Ricans in the Northeast. In 1968 Congress approved
a bill filed by Senator Ralph Yarborough, of Texas, aimed at removing the language barrier to an equal education. The Bilingual
Education Act was a modestly funded ($7.5 million for the first year) amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, intended to help poor Mexican-American children learn English. At the time, the goal was "not to keep any
specific language alive," Yarborough said. "It is not the purpose of the bill to create pockets of different languages
through the country ... but just to try to make those children fully literate in English."

...far from failing in its intended task, our educational system is in fact succeeding magnificently, because its aim is to
keep the American people thoughtless enough to go on supporting the system. - Richard Mitchell

Private Money Could Build Private Schools

The paladins of pedagogy never weary of telling us public schools are "underfunded."

Yet billions of dollars lay around just for the taking, or better yet, just for the giving.

The money is in private hands, and if those who possessed it believe what they say about education, we could abolish public
schools and go private.

Annenberg and Other Millionaires

This truth hit home in the obituaries of Walter Annenberg, the media tycoon who died this week. Annenberg, founder of TV
Guide, donated millions to education.

According to one obituary, he gave $50 million to the United Negro College Fund in 1990, and in 1993, showered Harvard,
the universities of Pennsylvania and Southern California, and his prep school, with $365 million. He gave another $500 million
to institutions trying to improve public schooling.

And there's more than one Annenberg. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, and Lawrence Ellison, worth nearly $150 billion
combined, could easily make similar contributions. Moderately wealthy entertainers such as Bill Cosby or Barbra Streisand
could cough up millions more.

Instead of throwing $1 billion at the United Nations, Ted Turner could have given his money to public schools.

Aside from individuals, the hundreds of American philanthropies such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations could easily
subsidize a school system.

The question is why they don't, given that the individuals who run these organizations or accumulate this wealth, many
of them high-minded liberals or do-gooders, never tire of lecturing us about the import of public schools.

The Problem with Public Schools

Actually, public schools are not important. Education is important, and public schools are only tangentially related to
it.

Modern pedagogy is based on a Prussian model designed to redirect the loyalties of the child away from family and church
and toward the state. Public schools, meaning government schools, aren't so much concerned about learning as about "making
good democratic citizens," as the education "experts" put it.

That's the high-falutin' way of saying their purpose is to hammer the child with values approved by the state. Public education
has never been a sound idea. But 50 years ago, at least, the schools imparted knowledge in a milieu imbued with a moral code
to which everyone, or mostly everyone, subscribed.

That is no longer true, so parents are locked in unrelenting strife with school boards over pro-homosexual textbooks, sex
education, religion (creationism), literature and even dress and deportment.

That, of course, is the peril of using public money for private purposes. Everyone cannot agree on what should be taught
or what "values," to use the vulgate, should be imparted.

If all schools were private, parents would control education. That's precisely why the liberals, and some so-called conservatives,
would never give up government schools. They want to control the children.

Abolish the Public Schools

We can solve the problem of angry parents and poor education by dumping the failing and fatally flawed public schools.

Let taxpayers off the hook, and ask our millionaires and billionaires to donate money for private schools that reward excellent
instruction and academic achievement, instead of "self-esteem" and plundering unions.

The point? The money Annenberg gave to those public schools could have built a network of private schools. Gates could
build a school system by himself.

But even while we dream about this wonderful day, the liberal moneybags who scold us about coughing up the taxes for public
education should follow Annenberg's example.

For many years, numerous critics have complained about the apparently close relationship between the National Education Association
- America's enormous teachers' union - and the Democratic National Committee. Until recently, there was not much anyone could
do other than complain.

The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal
with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate,
to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire
further knowledge by his own effort.

American public education is a remarkable enterprise; it succeeds best where it fails. Imagine an industry that consistently
fails to do what it sets out to do. a factory where this year's product is invariably sleazier than last year's but, nevertheless,
better than next year's. Imagine a corporation whose executives are always spending vast sums of money on studies designed
to discover just what it is they are supposed to do and then vaster sums for further studies on just how to do it. Imagine
a plant devoted to the manufacture of factory seconds to be sold at a loss. Imagine a producer of vacuum cleaners that rarely
work hiring whole platoons of engineers who will, in time, report that it is, in fact, true that the vacuum cleaners rarely
really work, and who will, for a larger fee, be glad to find out why, if that's possible. If you discover some such outfit,
don't invest in it. Unfortunately, we are all required to invest in public education.